[Carlhole]

McKinsey Quarterly

Only a collaboration between the two countries will create an environment where clean-energy technologies can thrive.

China and the United States, the world’s dominant producers of carbon emissions, have adopted aggressive programs to reduce oil imports, create new clean-energy industries and jobs, and generally improve the environment. But the environment that will be most critical to making or breaking the two countries’ efforts to curb the dangers of global warming could well be the market that they jointly create in pursuit of their aims. Unless the two work together to provide the scale, standards, and technology transfer necessary to make a handful of promising but expensive new clean-energy technologies successful, momentum to curb global warming could stall and neither country will maximize its gains in terms of green jobs, new companies, and energy security.

Unable to submit news, so submitting it here.

[pup55]

Unless the two work together to provide the scale, standards, and technology transfer necessary to make a handful of promising but expensive new clean-energy technologies successful, momentum to curb global warming could stall and neither country will maximize its gains in terms of green jobs, new companies, and energy security.

And this benefits China how?

These guys will not do anything unless it is in their direct interest. If they keep all of the emissions stuff off of their manufacturing and power generation sectors, they can keep their costs low, increase market share in Europe and North America for their junky manufactured goods, they can put their people to work, which is what they want, and they can gradually take over the world the easy way, by buying it.

If you have ever been in a Chinese manufacturing facility, as I have, you can see their attitude toward worker safety (all of the safety stops from any equipment are removed as soon as they are installed) and environment (as long as the workers can walk to their equipment, the factory is clean enough... to hell with the neighbors)....

They have no incentive to increase their costs.....or slow down what they are doing in any way whatever. The former Soviet Union was notorious for running the most environmentally irresponsible economy in history, with geological-scale industrial waste disasters....but this will soon be overtaken if it has not already....by the Chinese, whose philosophy is: export or die.

The western nations and companies who are helping facilitate all of this this like it that way. It's just like the 50's.... a golden age.... they design the products, they are built in the cheapest way possible, even if it is dirty, and they get the profits.

[Tyler_JC]

Another thing to keep in mind is the rampant corruption throughout the entire country of China. The politburo in Beijing can issue whatever edicts they want but it's up to the local government to enforce these edicts.

It is rather easy for XYZ Industrial Plant to bribe a local official into giving their factory an A+ rating for worker safety, environmental concern, whatever.

There are countless cases of companies getting credit for building wind turbines that don't work, selling safety equipment for scrap, outright ignoring pollution controls, etc.

[Plantagenet]

China will be happy to copy the technology in the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt and sell the US cheap knockoffs of electric cars.

Is that what you mean by a clean-tech partnership?

[Carlhole]

China will be happy to copy the technology in the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt and sell the US cheap knockoffs of electric cars.

Is that what you mean by a clean-tech partnership?

I'm not the McKinsey Quarterly.

It won’t be easy for countries and companies to work in common to make these technologies real. The challenges to cooperation are numerous. Companies in both nations will be wary about what information they share with partners and competitors. Real cooperation between the two countries on technology initiatives is limited, so both sides will have to work hard to build relationships. In addition, they will need to create institutional frameworks for implementing and managing projects, as well as cofinancing mechanisms, partnership rules, and governance models. US companies will be concerned about protecting the intellectual property (IP) technologies that they use in pilot projects in China. The two governments will need to cleanly separate bilateral initiatives on clean-energy development from broader, multilateral agreements on emissions reductions. The list goes on.

But none of these challenges are showstoppers. Negotiations between the two countries could address nearly all these issues comprehensively. Even the thorniest—IP protection—is manageable. Because companies from many nations would contribute to making these three big technologies a success, IP agreements should be international. On that front, China will need to improve its ability to enforce global IP rules. Most critical, however, is the leadership that will be needed to surmount these obstacles. A commitment at the top levels of both governments to set a joint course for making these technologies real would be the signal of a real beginning. From there the impulse for collaboration may well filter down through the public and private sectors in the two countries to make research, investment, and policy a cooperative agenda.

About the Author
Jonathan Woetzel is a director in McKinsey’s Shanghai office.

You must not have read the article -- again.

[Plantagenet]

You must not know how China operates, Carlhole. They are notorious for copying technology.

Wishful thinking by you and/or the McKinsey report author about China improving their compliance with international IP standards are unlikely to change their existing business culture, especially when their current mode of behavior has been so successful for them.

[Carlhole]

Another McKinsey Quarterly article urging US - China cooperation.[/url]

How China and the US will set the global climate agenda

In December, representatives from nearly 200 nations will gather in Copenhagen to negotiate a possible global agreement for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As these meetings draw near, many in the international community are looking to China and the United Sates, the world’s biggest carbon emitters, to help set the agenda for global climate efforts.
In this video interview, Kenneth Lieberthal, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and director of its John L. Thornton China Center, paints a portrait of the path toward Copenhagen and addresses the difficult questions both China and the United States must face in the coming months. He also outlines the scope of opportunities that cooperation on clean-energy development could create, the remaining roadblocks to compromise, and his hypothesis that a clean-energy partnership will emerge between the two countries before December.

China has nearly $1 trillion in dollar reserves. The US is STILL it's biggest trading partner. China's Premier has continually re-iterated that cooperation is the order of the day.

[Plantagenet]

China has nearly $1 trillion in dollar reserves. The US is STILL it's biggest trading partner. China's Premier has continually re-iterated that cooperation is the order of the day.

Sure....cooperation so far has meant the US going into debt to China. Why shouldn't China want a continuation of "cooperation."

As far as the global climate agenda goes, Obama has already abandoned the long-held US position that China and other developing countries should agree to CO2 reductions just like the developed countries. China's position has long been that they will refuse to reduce their CO2 output because it might hurt their economy.....now the US will "cooperate" by agreeing that CHina can continue to grow their CO2 production and their economy.

[Carlhole]

You must not know how China operates, Carlhole. They are notorious for copying technology.

Wishful thinking by you and/or the McKinnon report authors about China improving their compliance with international IP standards are unlikely to change their existing business culture, especially when their current mode of behavior has been so successful for them.

It's not me whose writing this stuff! It's the McKinsey Quarterly, an energy and resource business publication.

The articles confirm that, in the past, there have been many, many violations of Intellectual Property rights. The articles are calling for formalized International Agreements guaranteeing IP protections. MQ also claims that greater cooperation is imminent.

I posted this as news because McKinsey & Company put it out! Jesus, redneck, get a brain!

McKinsey & Company is a global management consulting firm. We are the trusted advisor to the world’s leading businesses, governments, and institutions.

We help leaders make distinctive, lasting, and substantial improvements to the performance of their organizations. We tackle their most difficult issues and serious challenges. We provide our people an outstanding place to work, with opportunities for growth that they can find nowhere else.

We’re about world-shaping impact.

We’re about developing exceptional leaders.

We’re about trust-based relationships.

We’re about finding innovative solutions.

We’re about people who have a passion to help.

We have an unparalleled depth of both functional and industry expertise as well as breadth of geographical reach. Our scale, scope, and knowledge allow us to address problems that no one else can. At heart, we are a network of people who are passionate about taking on immense challenges that matter to leading organizations, and often, to the world.

[Plantagenet]

Wishful thinking by you and/or the McKinnon report authors about China improving their compliance with international IP standards are unlikely to change their existing business culture, especially when their current mode of behavior has been so successful for them.

It's not me whose writing this stuff! It's the McKinsey Quarterly, an energy and resource business publication....Jesus, redneck, get a brain!

Of course.

Thats exactly what my post says....Jesus, combative redneck, get a brain!

[Carlhole]

Wishful thinking by you and/or the McKinnon report authors about China improving their compliance with international IP standards are unlikely to change their existing business culture, especially when their current mode of behavior has been so successful for them.

It's not me whose writing this stuff! It's the McKinsey Quarterly, an energy and resource business publication....Jesus, redneck, get a brain!

Of course.

Thats exactly what my post says....Jesus, combative redneck, get a brain!

So you agree with the articles!

Yet you're bitching at me about them. Look, I'm just posting news related to clean-tech, a subject relevant to the broad subject of peak oil. McKinsey & Company are the experts behind the articles; NOT ME!

As I said in my first post, I couldn't access "submit news" so I posted it here.

(Christ, what brain-dead cretins follow me around this place).

[americandream]

Carlhole

I suspect the point that plants making and its a valid one, is that the Chinese business model is being milked by an awful lot of self serving people and any concessions to whatever noble cause will be simple windowdressing at best, including any propaganda put out.

[Carlhole]

Carlhole

I suspect the point that plants making and its a valid one, is that the Chinese business model is being milked by an awful lot of self serving people and any concessions to whatever noble cause will be simple windowdressing at best, including any propaganda put out.

Well, that has been the prevailing wisdom for a long, long time. It's so well known that it largely goes without saying.

But now, after the worst financial crunch since the GD, McKinsey & Company, a well-known global consulting firm of good repute and wide-ranging international expertise, has put out a few articles about US - China cooperation on energy and clean-tech. These articles will be widely read by the international business community.

An intelligent question to raise after reading these articles would be: "What, in the nature of ongoing US-China relations, leads McKinsey to state that a much greater level of cooperation is not simply necessary, but is just around the corner?" Because the articles did not get into specifics about current negotiations.

China requires trade in order to grow its economy, a goal which it is compelled to pursue. China appears to take a much longer economic view than the US has done in the past. It is not a big stretch to perceive that the Chinese leaders will agree to uphold intellectual property protections if China hopes to maintain its own growth through stable trading relationships.

Now that the US has shipped off its manufacturing sector to China en masse, one would naturally expect that international legal structures will quickly emerge to reflect the urgency of the two countries' co-dependent economic situations.

If you want to argue points about these articles, take it up with McKinsey. Not me. I didn't write them. I'm just posting news about what a large, international consulting company is choosing to make public.

[americandream]

Carlhole

I suspect the point that plants making and its a valid one, is that the Chinese business model is being milked by an awful lot of self serving people and any concessions to whatever noble cause will be simple windowdressing at best, including any propaganda put out.

Well, that has been the prevailing wisdom for a long, long time. It's so well known that it largely goes without saying.

But now, after the worst financial crunch since the GD, McKinsey & Company, a well-known global consulting firm of good repute and wide-ranging international expertise, has put out a few articles about US - China cooperation on energy and clean-tech. These articles will be widely read by the international business community.

An intelligent question to raise after reading these articles would be: "What, in the nature of ongoing US-China relations, leads McKinsey to state that a much greater level of cooperation is not simply necessary, but is just around the corner?" Because the articles did not get into specifics about current negotiations.

China requires trade in order to grow its economy, a goal which it is compelled to pursue. China appears to take a much longer economic view than the US has done in the past. It is not a big stretch to perceive that the Chinese leaders will agree to uphold intellectual property protections if China hopes to maintain its own growth through stable trading relationships.

Now that the US has shipped off its manufacturing sector to China en masse, one would naturally expect that international legal structures will quickly emerge to reflect the urgency of the two countries' co-dependent economic situations.

If you want to argue points about these articles, take it up with McKinsey. Not me. I didn't write them. I'm just posting news about what a large, international consulting company is choosing to make public.

I agree with you on the compulsion to cooperate but the point thats being missed in this debate is that the Chinese will largely go through the motions of cooperation wherever possible. China we should continually remind ourselves, is in the grasp of the same mob who sold us infallible sub-prime derivatives and 10 years later, what have we to show for it but devastated urban, suburban and rural landscapes. There will be Chinese and Indian bubbles yes, but there will also be further revisitings of bubble meltdowns, each one being worse than the one before as it increasingly becomes evident that profits always trump safeguards.